LAWS(RAJ)-1993-9-20

NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 09, 1993
NARAIN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above numbered writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts of the cases are identical and the notifications for acquisition of land issued under sub-section (2) of Section 52 as well as Sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short, the (JIT Act) in each of the aforesaid cases are the same. For the disposal of the above numbered writ petitions the facts of D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1124/1984 Narain V. State of Rajasthan and others alone shall be stated.

(2.) THE petitioner Narain is the holder of agricultural lands bearing khasra Nos. 100, 101 and 102 measuring 12 bighas 6 biswas situated in the revenue village. Sewage Farm, Tehsil and District Jaipur. THE said agricultural lands are situated within the boundaries of the Municipal limits of Jaipur City and earlier it was within the jurisdiction of the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur and now under the jurisdiction of Jaipur Development Authority (for short, the JDA ). THE petitioner and others were holding agricultural lands in revenue villages Hathori, Bhojpura, Kishanpole and Bhawanishankarpura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur, which with the ever increasing organisations were included in the boundaries of Municipal limits of Jaipur City and were acquired for residential purposes from time to time. THE petitioner and others were allotted lands situated in the then revenue village Sodala (also known as Sodawala) and Kartarpura and the present revenue village 'sewage Farm' was carved out in the year 1944 out of the aforesaid two villages.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the acquisition of land under the UIT Act must have been in conformity with the Master Plan and there could be no acquisition for a purpose, for the land use, otherwise than one shown in the Master! Plan. There appears to be no dispute that so far as the land in dispute is concerned, in the Master Plan, the land use has been shown for the purpose of 'agriculture, nurseries, orchard, poultries and dairies. It will further be seen that so far as recreation under which the parks including the city level park as one is sought to be established is concerned, it has been shown separately in the Master Plan. Similarly, in the Master Plan the residential/commercial area or in other words, the land use for these purposes has been shown separately.